Skip to main content

Basecamp's web site on Safari 13.1.2, macOS 10.13.6:

Are you curious about what those "modern web technologies" are? As far as I can tell, the technology in question is a recent innovation known as "drawing your checkboxes in the right place", which...
https://jwz.org/b/ykWH

Cory Doctorow reshared this.

in reply to jwz

Jeff
Jeff
• •

I was using Qutebrowser against a latest-Qt5 last year when I started at the current gig. I wasn't able to use one of our webtools because the browser engine was same gen as your Safari version.

When I looked up the specific API that was missing, I had a distinct "how-tf is that not a 20-year-old API?"

I think the browsers have been reinventing the same badly spec'ed APIs for the last 25 years.

in reply to jwz

Eric Vitiello
Eric Vitiello
• •
I wonder what features they added since 2004 that required “modern web technologies”
in reply to jwz

Mark
Mark
• •
not supporting Safari 13 is really not an unusual or unreasonable position for a web app.
in reply to jwz

jwz
jwz
• •

To those of you JavaScript-framework-poisoned goofballs who are inclined to claim that it is right and reasonable to disavow a web browser that is only 5 years old, let me remind you:

This program is a god damned *TODO list*.

It puts things in columns with checkboxes next to them.

It's not rocket science. It's not *Fallout*. It's not even *Breakout*. It's not even *VisiCalc* .

in reply to jwz

Jon Koops 🇪🇺
Jon Koops 🇪🇺
• •
I really despise how Apple has tied updates to Safari to the operating system version, it's truly terrible.
in reply to jwz

Byron :computerfairies:
Byron :computerfairies:
• •
the real question is... can you click that checkbox in its new position
in reply to jwz

Jonathan Gulbrandsen
Jonathan Gulbrandsen
• •
but 10.13s OS successor Mojave (10.14) only drops support for computers 13-15 years old. That frames it differently, no? Any other reason to not upgrade?
in reply to jwz

Jonathan Gulbrandsen
Jonathan Gulbrandsen
• •
if a site owner knows they are only excluding users with machines older than 15 years and are hence fine with that, am I? They would make the same analysis as me. It’s not the version number that matters, it’s what that user COULD upgrade to at no cost (or not).
in reply to jwz

cohomology is FUN!
cohomology is FUN!
• •

what happened to graceful degradation?

Replacing old devices with new ones has a cost, not just financial but environmental. I’m not against pushing the boundaries of technology with groundbreaking applications but I’m sick of sites serving megabytes of JavaScript when the underlying thing is a todo list or a newspaper article.

in reply to jwz

Don Whiteside
Don Whiteside
• •
I agree with you philosophically but as a practical matter I’d rather be boiled in piss than use a DHH-associated product anyway.
in reply to jwz

Arosano@hachyderm
Arosano@hachyderm
• •
Back in the day we taught #interoperability, and some #goofballs even invented graceful degradation. I guess that these days browsers better do whatever the developer wants.
#interoperability #goofballs
in reply to jwz

Henner Zeller
Henner Zeller
• •

drawing and validating checkboxes _should_ really work with any browser younger than ca. 30 years.
Maybe, for fancy validation, 25 years.

At least in my time.

(Me, old man shouting at web whippersnappers in the cloud)

⇧